tv [untitled] March 8, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm PST
. we are also meeting the 50% chephren -- good faith threshold. this area has suffered and the major intersections including mission street. they have filed claims against the city would do to the damages that they have suffered that time. this has been in the works since 2005. we go through the designing phase and we have gone through the secret documents. i guess the answer, if we don't move on this and we want to
wait, then there would be a long-delayed and at least two years. that is the risk we will be taking, if these properties flood again, then we are not adjusting those for the community and the residences and businesses in that area that flooding that the half and suffering from. -- that they have been suffering from. >> you brought up some good points. while you were speaking, we actually got some kind of response. i wanted to get some development on something specific that was referenced in town they referenced daylighting the creek. can you develop on what has been done or not done with respect to that particular reference? >> in terms of daylight in the
creek, that is a much bigger undertaking. it will have to tie in with the urban watershed framework that we are doing right now. we actually had a tributary amount that can show you the area that flows into cesar chavez. i hope that this will give us some idea of how much flow is actually contributing to the project area. the whole area, when we have a rain event, all of the water contributes to the cesar chavez pipeline. in order to not have a timeline, we will need to work upstream
and work from the top in that area. >> can we go back to this? >> i think this figure shows exactly because this is 1,400 acres that are draining down. all of that is making his way through the pike. we would be starting upstream. the first phase was to put in the pipe and also to repair the existing store lines that are 100 years old when we look at the urban watershed from work, we will be looking for out watershed. we will be looking at daylighting and some cases, that will be the separation of the source and it might need separating storm water and wastewater so that we can keep it isolated and keep it out of the system to buy back the capacity. i drove cesar chavez and this is really crowded.
having this flooding or the public, is that this can cause is something that is worrisome. we will be continuing to work on this. we will quantify the issues that were brought to light, how much storm water removal and what did they buy. >> you have not done any up- front modeling. it seems that if you introduce this like some absorption or whatever amount he would be able to say, you actually don't need that. the goals we have set, those we were able to keep out of the pipe. >> the issue is that this would be on cesar chavez at this is
for 200 acres. just because you keep up a small amount of water has no connection with the flooding. we have all the rest of these going downhill. >> couldn't you do these upstream? >> yes, it would take years to do. you are talking but changing the entire flow of the largest watershed in san francisco and that is why we are putting a whole bunch of money into this. that will take a long time to figure out how to do that, how to deflect the water, how to put it into creeks and we should not be too simplistic. these are bigger issues that you will not fix with just this one project. thank you. >> also, we heard the presentation about global
warming. what we think we know about that is that it is likely to produce a higher intensity storms. that exacerbates the flooding problem and frankly it calls on higher capacity facilities safely at the system. if we ended up by virtue of the circumstance having a little extra capacity in the system, that does not bother me at all. if we were to encourage additional costs or for that matter, if we were to downsize a pipe five years down the road that we needed to increase, that is a hugely expensive mistake to correct.
without any diminution of interest, without a great deal of knowledge, i am very comfortable proceeding with the project and developing for a long time and solving some problems that we know our real that affect people day-to-day and if it ends up with a little extra capacity in the system, i am for it. >> well, you know, i have been talking to staff and that is where i have landed ultimately and that is why i keep urging that if we do move forward with this to please continue to engage the public. we would like to do the watershed planning and introduce the lid and work towards these
common goals that we have and whether they take a change order or whatever it is, the commission would be open to that if it will show some major reduction of storm water into the system and what we can really be achieving. >> thank you. >> there's no other comments from the commissioners. >> do we have a motio>> we will. all those in favor? moving forward.
>> it is there a motion to a top item number 12? >> all those in favor? >> next item? >> given the length of the meeting, we will not be doing close session items. >> we will continue the closed session. and this will be at the next meeting. >> is there other commission business? >> hearing none, this meeting is adjourned.